University's brain-to-brain or 'mind-reading' experiment wasn't all that

By JAKE ELLISON, SEATTLEPI.COM STAFF

Updated 7:15 pm, Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Image 1of/2

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 2

PLOS ONE caption: EEG Components of the BBI for the Respondent. During the experiment, the respondent sat in front of a computer screen (A) on a comfortable chair, while EEG signals were recorded from the scalp using an active electrode cap (D). SSVEPs in the EEG signal from the occipital lobe were driven by the frequencies of two flashing LEDs, positioned on the left (“Yes” answer, 13 Hz: B) and the right (“No” answer, 12 Hz: C) side of the screen. (Image from BBI research report in PLOS ONE) less

PLOS ONE caption: EEG Components of the BBI for the Respondent. During the experiment, the respondent sat in front of a computer screen (A) on a comfortable chair, while EEG signals were recorded from the scalp ... more

Image 2 of 2

PLOS ONE caption: TMS Components of the BBI for the Inquirer. During the experiment, the inquirer sat in front of a computer screen on a BrainSight chair, with his or her head kept in place by a two-pronged head rest (A). A figure-of-8 TMS coil (B), connected to a MagStim Super Rapid2 stimulator (C) was positioned over the inquirer’s occipital lobe to deliver visual stimulation in accordance with the respondent’s answer. The head position and the coil position were carefully checked with the aid of a laser pointer (D). (Image from BBI research report in PLOS ONE) less

PLOS ONE caption: TMS Components of the BBI for the Inquirer. During the experiment, the inquirer sat in front of a computer screen on a BrainSight chair, with his or her head kept in place by a two-pronged ... more

University's brain-to-brain or 'mind-reading' experiment wasn't all that

1 / 2

Back to Gallery

At best, you could call it "proof of concept," but for sure it was not "mind reading" and whether or not it was "brain-to-brain interface" or BBI depends on how you want to tell the story of this research that got a lot of misleading press.

This paper presents the successful demonstration of a new, non-invasive BBI in humans, which allowed pairs of participants to successfully collaborate and complete a series of question-and-answer games using information transferred between their brains. This BBI paradigm significantly extends and improves previous protocols in that (1) it involves the transfer of consciously perceived information in the form of phosphenes, (2) works in real-time, and (3) permits bidirectional information exchange between two participants. In this sense, this experiment represents a significant step forward towards the goal of creating BBIs with real- world applications.

And the new release states:

University of Washington researchers recently used a direct brain-to-brain connection to enable pairs of participants to play a question-and-answer game by transmitting signals from one brain to the other over the Internet. The experiment, detailed today in PLOS ONE, is thought to be the first to show that two brains can be directly linked to allow one person to guess what's on another person's mind.

"This is the most complex brain-to-brain experiment, I think, that's been done to date in humans," said lead author Andrea Stocco, an assistant professor of psychology and a researcher at UW's Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences.

Cool, right?

The researchers put a cap laced with electrodes on the head of one player (the signals are read by an electroencephalogram or EEG system) who faces a screen with a "yes" side flashing light and a "no" side flashing light (different rates of pulses). A mile away, Player 2 has a special magnet placed at the back of her head connected to the EEG system over the Internet.

Player 2 selects a question "Does it have wings?" from a computer screen and the question is sent to player 1's screen. Player 1 looks intently at either the "yes" flashing light or "no," depending on whether the answer for the game (like ... "It's a dog") has wings or not. The EEG sends a signal to the magnet. If the answer looked at by Player 1 was "yes," the magnet then fires a pulse into the head of Player 2 that causes a "phospheme" or a flash of light in the brain.

Here's a diagram:

So what's the problem? Well, as I wrote Stocco and the UW, I don't get all the fuss.

PLOS ONE caption: Architecture of the BBI and “20 Questions” Experiment. In the experiment, two participants (an “inquirer” and a “respondent”) played a question- answering game similar to “20 Questions.” The respondent is given an object (e.g., “dog”) that is unknown to the inquirer and that the inquirer has to guess. The inquirer asks a question about the object by selecting a question (using a mouse) from questions displayed on a screen. The question is then presented visually to the respondent through a web interface. The respondent answers “Yes” or “No” directly through their brain signals by paying attention to one of two flashing LEDs (“Yes” = 13 Hz; “No” = 12 Hz). The BBI uses EEG to decode the respondent’s answer, and a TMS apparatus to convey the answer to the inquirer by generating a visual percept through stimulation for “Yes” and the absence of a percept for “No.” In the figure, the BBI system is highlighted in red. (Image from BBI research report in PLOS ONE)

PLOS ONE caption: Architecture of the BBI and “20 Questions”...

"... doesn't it all just come down to being able to read a brain state consistently electronically with the EEG? ... a brain state induced by the flashing lights? Once you can do that, the rest is just brute-force mechanics (revving up the magnet to cause the phosphene)."

Stocco wrote back:

"In a sense, you are right that it all comes down to measuring spectral power of brain waves and activating magnetic coils. However, that would be true for every kind of brain-to-brain interface that we could be able to design with EEG and TMS.

"In this particular case, we did take standard tools of the trade (SSVEPs for the EEG side and phosphenes for the TMS [magnet] side) and connected them. Our goal was to show that the infrastructure is reliable and interactive."

The best way to describe the experiment -- allegorically, to capture my criticism — is:

In one room you have a guy behind a one-way mirror who can see what light Player 1 is looking at. The person behind the mirror then contacts someone standing out of sight over Player 2 and tells what answer Player 1 gave.

If it is "Yes," the person standing behind Player 2 smacks Player 2 over the head causing a flash of light to appear in his/her head. If "No," nothing happens. Player 2 then eliminates the question or adds it to the "yes" list, and the game starts all over again.

(This allegory breaks down slightly around the method for getting the light to flash in the brain -- the phosphene -- of Player 2. The magnets are designed to cause the light to flash in the brain without the subject identifying an outside force for "yes" or "no.")

When you put it like that, you then realize what the real crux of the experiment is: Can you fine tune an EEG (the guy behind the one-way mirror) to pick out the brain activity that signals a "yes"? If so, then it's only a matter of sending a signal to the magnet (guy with hammer) that then fires a pulse into Player 2's head.

So, this isn't "mind reading" nor a "brain-to-brain interface" so much as an EEG tuned to a brain wave for "yes." Of course, there is one brain "wired" to another, but this interaction is less about the two brains and all the controls put in place to make sure neither brain could cheat and more about that EEG system.

What Stocco et al. had to say in the study:

In summary, the different measures of BBI performance collectively demonstrate that the inquirers correctly identified the respondents' answers during the experimental conditions, but performed at chance levels during the control games. These results have two implications. First, the success of the five pairs during the experimental condition confirms that the interactive BBI was successful and generalizable across different human subjects. Second, the fact that the pairs' performance was at chance levels during the control condition implies that the communication between the two participants was relying specifically on the information provided by the direct brain-to-brain connection, rather than through other environmental or sensory cues.

When you get through all the storytelling about what the researchers want to be up to and home in on what this experiment is really good for, you end up with a complex idea about incremental science -- which is why science is hard to write about in an Internet age wherein people are determined to read only headlines. And note too, the way incremental science gets funding (this was funded by the private W.M. Keck Foundation) is to show promise, to show where the techniques and discoveries can lead.

Again, what Stocco told us: "Our goal was to show that the infrastructure is reliable and interactive."

In the end, the experiment's design acts as a metaphor for the promise of brain-to-brain interactions. The interaction would be private and could also be going on subconsciously, such as one brain interacting or standing in for a part of another brain that has been damaged.

This experiment appears to show more how to go about thinking about what it would take to actually accomplish that interaction than really accomplishing that interaction.